Which does not mean that it is the same, only that conformism is a basis for a PC attitude, but neither that conformism leads automatically to PC, nore that everything that comes from conformism has to do with PC.
Is it really something recent? Or is only the expression PC something recent?
It involves speaking in metaphors⌠and slang.
Ken Curtis (Festus), from Gunsmoke, is the best example I can think of right now. -A graduate of John Ford westerns, where the minor characters have most of the best lines.
" That blamed rifle kicks like bobtail-mule at both ends. "âŚ
Oh I donât know. Sometimes it can be groovy man.
Look again at the explanation I copied from wikipedia. I canât think of any period in history where people were using and or promoting âlanguage, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in societyâ Women rights (including the rights to vote) are pretty recent, most civilisations from ancient history to modern times knew slavery (do you really think the language and/or behaviour of slave holders - or the people in those days - was PC by any stretch of the imagination?), apartheid was only abolished recently in countries like South-Africa and the US, etc. In those days people werenât discussing whether certain others should be called negroes or black, but discussing whether they were human beings or some kind of less valuable species, closer to apes than humans.
Of course, but there were probably other things people avoided for the same reasons in former times. I still doubt that the thinking behind being PC is that new.
Being PC about race questions or about feminism is of course new. Things canât be PC before there is a social awareness of them as problem.
Apart from that I find these PC accusations of films or books often much overdone. It is a simple way to attack films which have âsomething to sayâ. The term PC is much too often used to discredit people or films (or books etc)
Well, in that particular case we simply donât agree. But those things happen 
Well, that surprises me.
^
It doesnât âŚ
Escalated? Itâs okay ro have different opinions on things (just my opinion, of course).
One thing:
Did you think of one (or more) book(s)/movie(s) in particular?
I read that very often about films which have some critical or commercial success, and which have a certain content.
12 Years a Slave springs to my mind, or only a few days ago about Dunkirk.
Frankly said I donât care about things being PC or not, and I think I never blame films for that. It is a method to criticise films which I somehow donât like (not the films, the method), and it is for that not important if I like the such criticised films.
20 posts were merged into an existing topic: James Bond
Apologies gentlemen but weâd veered way off-topic there; the last weekâs-worth of posts were about James Bond so Iâve moved them to our dedicated thread which you can find HERE.
**Terror in a Texas Town (1958) 7/10
The Appaloosa (1966) 7/10
Along Came Jones (1945) 7/10
The Americano (1955) 5/10
An Israeli western, you donât see that very often. Actually I had never seen or even heard of this picture before. Itâs far from great, but I nevertheless enjoyed it:
dir by Vincenzo Musolino
Quintana
Oh boy, what a turkey I chose to start a spagh marathon.
In its tedious style very similar to Mulargiaâs worst efforts, namely Cjamango and Donât Wait, Django, Shoot. You can safely use fastforward, half of the movie is just people walking, sitting, riding or waiting - I had to check out the net afterwards, if Mulargia wasnât involved somehow. Occasional shootouts and mediocre music doesnât really help either, nor that the movie is sometimes extremely stupid. For example, Quintana frees prisoners and while he is staying inside, men are slaughthered outside by soldiers (Something like six of them). Then he comes out and shoots soldiers without any problems. Subsequently he questions his actions and comes to conclusion he shouldnât play a hero. Well, you could, but next time go outside first and deal with possible threats yourself, not your unarmed companions.
Cinematography is sometimes interesting, but if you would drink a shot of whisky everytime a dutch angle is used, you would probably die from alcohol poisoning.
My rating: 1 out of 5
aka Wrath Of God
I started to watch and soon enough shook my head in despair. Ten minutes in I thought this is going to be pretty much on the same level as Quintana. What a waste that would be, for it features one of my genre favorites, Brett Halsey. Thankfully with a cool shootout in the forest things suddenly started to look better. Next desert scene seconded that (especially what happens after knifefight), and I thought âThis is going to be the best revenge spagh since El Desperadoâ. 
And you know what? No, it wasnât!
It was actually quite horrible from that point - you got a prison scene, poker game scene, weird scene at the post office at the midnight, Sancho the scoundrel trademark scene, all that shit is there and and it all more or less sucks and Iâm again in my head shaking routine, but then a small miracle happens. Near the very end, there is actually another cool scene in a cave concerning a horse, a rope, a hole and some clever sneaky action. Nice.
So the result, with some interesting locations and Lacerenzaâs score counted in, is not that bad.
Rating: 
Now what kind of rating is that?
Stantonâs virtually incomprehensible rating system is easy to understand compared to yours âŚ
Oh, yes, I see. Let me explain it.
= 
= 
= / 
+ 
Otherwise comprehensible but Iâm not so sure about that butt plug.
